Well, there are a couple of things we need to think about here. One is the simple fact that our artists are often monsters, and we are left to make what we will of their creations in light of this. V.S. Naipaul is, by all accounts, a horrible man. T.S. Eliot wrote a number of openly anti-semitic poems, and some of the parts of The Wasteland that Pound edited out are filled with a rancid misogyny. Louis-Ferdinand Céline was anti-semitic to the point of lunacy, and in addition collaborated with the Nazis. Even the wonderful Hergé was capable of racism in his Tintin in the Congo. In each case, the potential reader must judge whether these facts are enough to turn them off the authors' work.

But to excuse behavior and beliefs because they were "of their time" is simply an appeal to the lowest common denominator. There are always some who are unblinkered, and I don't see why we are not free to judge their historical peers in light of their example. Furthermore, its hard to see how Lynch's argument. when applied consistently, would not invalidate any attempt at moral judgement. After all, we are all of our time and submerged in our culture. Can we not, for example, condemn execution by stoning though it is accepted practice in some milieus?